... But now we're finally getting solid evidence that it's coming soon. Though the above concept artwork has been floating around the internet for several years, the most recent official offering is this:
It actually is kind of promising. I was a little nervous when I read how many changes were being made to the original story concept and of course the original fairy tale, not to mention the recent official change of name (from Rapunzel and/or Rapunzel: Unbraided to the more ambiguous Tangled in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience), NOT TO MENTION the change from traditional animation to 3D (admittedly, with a distinctly 2D look & feel, but still...) despite being produced by 2D animation legend Glen Keane, and then throw in the casting change of Kristin Chenoweth to Mandy Moore, and... Well, my worries dissolved a little when I saw the above artwork and remembered the music will be composed by Disney favorite Alan Menken. The trailer (below) isn't much to look at, and I mean that quite literally since it's about 30 seconds of voiceovers and zoom in on a single piece of artwork, but it's proof positive that we can look forward to seeing this movie in theaters by the end of the year.
Looks fun!
ReplyDeleteI understand why they called it "Tangled." Not just to get the boys well entertained, but there are scenes in the synopsis that have created an example of the word "tangled," such as the bandit, named Flynn Rider, who gets "tangled" with Rapunzel after she made a deal for her freedom. Flynn and Rapunzel's romance can be "tangled." Even Rapunzel's hair can be "tangled" as well famous for her 70-feet of golden hair or blonde either way.
ReplyDeleteI watched the teaser trailer of Disney's Tangled, it is very cool, but did not show the name of the story. Which means that Disney COULD, but that depends on their version of the story perhaps, change the title back, even though changing the title from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" is official. However, on the leaked trailer before the teaser trailer that I have watched as well, it has revealed the title based on Disney's title change. It is really cool, but I do not have the taste buds on the new title that Disney made. In fact, I love the title logo that Disney made for Rapunzel; it is very beautiful, and entertaining. It makes me want to see it so much. But since they changed the title from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled," perhaps I could see it, but I would find it a flop.
To tell you the truth, I find that title, "Tangled," misleading, funny, but misleading. To me it is like watching a parody of Shrek, Hoodwinked, and Happily N'ever After put together. But I understand that Disney is sticking to one fairy tale by the Grimm Brothers, but I am afraid what they are doing is disrespectful to not only the Grimm Brothers, but to Walt Disney as well, because Walt Disney would never change titles on fairy tales. He probably does not care about people, like boys, who complain about fairy tales with girlish titles being too girlish, the only thing that Disney cares about is not only making dreams come true for FAMILIES by adapting fairy tales into animated movies, but to fulfill famous fairy tale writers who has shaped the world of entertainment for every family around the world.
Also, those boys need to "Dig a Little Deeper (according to the song from "The Princess and the Frog")," on the story of fairy tales with girlish titles, because what if Disney arranges the story to make it more interesting than typical? Maybe then, even though fairy tales have girlish titles, but it can have an excellent story for not just girls or boys, but for FAMILIES to enjoy, learn, and love. The only way that fairy tales could be too girlish, including the title, is if the story is too girlish. But through Disney's experience when it comes to adapting fairy tales into animated movies with girlish titles, they are all FAMILY. That is what makes Disney very special.
One more thing, it is not the title that bothers boys, it is the story itself that is not strong enough. Some times, Disney probably accidentally made the story a little too girlish for “The Princess and the Frog,” than trying to make it a family type, especially when some of the characters that Disney has created are not receiving enough roles. My advice for Disney is that the next time they want to adapt fairy tales into animated movies; they should try to make the story strong to fit to the title based on the fairy tale, instead of changing the title.
*blink blink*
ReplyDelete...
I don't know what to say. Maybe you could direct your comments toward someone who could actually do something about your, erm... suggestions?
The only other thing I will say is that this is a different generation. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty as is probably would not have been huge hits by today's standards, though they have certainly stood the test of time.
Too bad it's not 2D. Lame. All princess movies should be. Looks good anyway.
ReplyDeleteLooks nice! I'm a little bummed that it's not in 2D. I was kind of hoping that the style would make a comeback after "The Princess and the Frog," to tell the truth. 2D is what Disney really does best. Ah well, it looks like a beautiful film! Can't wait until it comes out!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm a little apprehensive on this one. It sounds like they set out to make a good old fashioned princess movie and are adulterating it with all kinds of garbage to make it more appealing to what they think families want. Boys and girls alike can appreciate a good movie. My small toddling son was reciting lines from the princess and the frog before it even came out on DVD. I'm the first to say that the world of Disney grossly underserves little boys, but if they are going to make a princess movie, they should make it a princess movie. They have plenty of properties that they could and should develop for the benefit of little boys.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think you are totally wrong about the tastes of this generation. People would go in DROVES to see a movie of Cinderella caliber...and I'm not sure it would even matter. If they made another movie of that quality, it would be an annuity for them that sold toys and dresses forever. Snow White came out for the benefit of my daughter's great grandparents, and she has been obsessed with that character for two years now. I really wish Disney would just realize that and stick to what they can do so very well and leave the crowd pleasing throwaway movies to Pixar.
I think I just meant that audiences today are different, and the general viewership's standards for films are quite different. With the history and background (and marketing, especially including theme parks) of previous Disney films, they are still really successful. Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty were incredibly innovative in their time, and really quite revolutionary for the art form and industry, but I don't know if story and character-wise they are the kind of movies that are being produced today. When The Princess and the Frog was released (arguably right on par with the best of Disney canon), people unfortunately did NOT go see it in droves. You can even see it in the style and quality of cartoons on TV. What used to be Looney Tunes and classic Disney has become Phineas & Ferb and any number of grotesque Cartoon Network drivel. It's simple projected marketing. Times change, so do people. Art changes too, but can be modified and maintain its quality, of which Disney is certainly capable.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think any one of Pixar's movies have been crowd-pleasing throwaways... Dreamworks' 3D offerings, on the other hand...
...Flynn Ryder?
ReplyDeleteBTW, Drew and Julie, have you heard about this yet?
ReplyDeleteYes, we have heard of that! I wish it were coming somewhere closer to Utah so I could go see it, but the closest is Denver, so I may just have to wait until it's more widely available. I've heard it's quite excellent.
ReplyDelete